# The Missing Ending to the Gospel of Mark **URL:** \ **Category:** Apologetics\ **Created:** [November 3, 2023, 5:02pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056 "2023-11-03T17:02:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Cade\_One](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/cade_one/32/34_2.png) [@Cade\_One](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Cade_One)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2023, 5:02pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/1 "2023-11-03T17:02:41Z")
The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written several decades before Matthew, Luke & John. The original manuscript that we have ends abruptly where Chapter 16, verse 8 is. We have found two alternative ending (one referred to as the _long ending_ and one referred to the _short ending_), but whether there are more to the ending than we currently have, we do not know for sure. The other Gospels mention Jesus doing things after rising from the Dead that might have been in Mark’s Gospel, but that were lost. Jimmy Akin talked about this last month on _Catholic Answers Live_ in more detail after a woman called in asking about a fiction book she was reading about the _missing pages_. She thought it might be a silly question, but it turned out to be a very good question. Jimmy is of the belief that there are not other lost pages and that the Gospel of Mark was a literary style of taking notes. Check your Bible and see if it goes to verse 8 or on to verse 20. And if it has the long, short, or both alternative endings. ---
**Author:** ![Docallan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aca169/32.png) [@Docallan](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Docallan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2023, 2:24pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/2 "2023-11-04T14:24:27Z")
Verses 17-20 of Mark’s Gospel are not an optional afterthought, they are part of the Gospel and are included in the Lectionary. These verses speak of the signs and wonders that would be associated with ordinary believers(not only apostles). Check it out! ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_One](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/cade_one/32/34_2.png) [@Cade\_One](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Cade_One)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2023, 3:46pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/3 "2023-11-06T15:46:14Z")
Right, but what I am saying is in the original manuscript it stopped before these verses. In others that they found, the short and the long version that included these verses were included. There are some who believe there are other missing portions that have been lost. But, yes, we should accept the ones that have been found, even if there are more to the Gospel that is missing or that is non-existent. ---
**Author:** ![MDD2299](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/mdd2299/32/274_2.png) [@MDD2299](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/MDD2299)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2023, 12:32am UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/4 "2023-11-24T00:32:50Z")
I highly recommend this book: [Why Four Gospels? by David Alan Black (amazon.com)](https://www.amazon.com/Four-Gospels-David-Alan-Black/dp/1893729877/ref=sr_1_1?crid=26FZKZPLK6WG4&keywords=why+four+gospels+by+david+alan+black&qid=1700785782&sprefix=why+four+g%2Caps%2C134&sr=8-1) Even though the author is a Baptist, his thesis and research is solid and matches well with the more traditional Catholic understanding that Matthew’s gospel was first, not Mark’s. ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_One](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/cade_one/32/34_2.png) [@Cade\_One](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Cade_One)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2023, 5:33pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/5 "2023-11-27T17:33:31Z")
Does he give reasons that support this claim? I’m genuinely interested. ---
**Author:** ![MDD2299](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/mdd2299/32/274_2.png) [@MDD2299](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/MDD2299)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2023, 1:31am UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/6 "2023-12-10T01:31:35Z")
Even though he is not Catholic, from what I can remember he relies on early fathers/tradition. Basically, the earlier you get back in history, the more credible the sources. ---
**Author:** ![MDD2299](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/mdd2299/32/274_2.png) [@MDD2299](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/MDD2299)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2023, 1:38am UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/7 "2023-12-10T01:38:49Z")
Basic outline: 1. Matthew was originally in Hebrew, not Greek. He was charged by the other Apostles to write down the life of Jesus. This gospel was intended for the Jewish audience. 2. Luke, a companion of Paul, wrote for a Gentile audience, which makes sense because of Paul being the “Apostle to the Gentiles”. 3. Mark’s gospel was really a collection of Peter’s sermons / addresses to the Romans while being held for trial in Rome. Mark was Peter’s traveling companion and secretary of sorts. 4. John’s was last and intended to fill in the theological gaps (such as the real presence in Ch 6) ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_One](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex015/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/cade_one/32/34_2.png) [@Cade\_One](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Cade_One)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2025, 3:53pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/10 "2025-05-05T15:53:01Z")
Most scholars disagree with you. It goes Mark (around AD 70), then Matthew and Luke (around AD 85-90), and finally John (around AD 90-110). I am open to another hypotheses, but it really doesn’t matter to me all that much when they were written. ---
**Author:** ![rstrats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@rstrats](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/rstrats)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2025, 1:43am UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/the-missing-ending-to-the-gospel-of-mark/1056/11 "2025-08-26T01:43:18Z")
A poster on another forum, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture. I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV and similar versions translate it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents sometimes use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, some quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: Quote a published author who has done that. - I have not yet been able to come up with one. I wonder if anyone here might know of one?